| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Naughty Boy
   |
Posted - 2005.12.13 19:17:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: keepiru
Or so people say.
I grabbed a random relevant log, 150mm AC t2 wolf against blood raider cruisers and battleships.
Summary
Wrecking hits ~1% as expected.
The distribution seems roughly uniform, if we get rid of miss (0 damage) and sum up "lightly hit" and "scratch". It could be tested with standard statistical tests but there's little point as it's not really an experiment conducted in a test environment.
Sincerly yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues and report bugs/problems/questions/other feedback. |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.13 19:39:00 -
[32]
Nice. That's another urban miyth busted, i guess. 
-------------
Where are the missile damage implants? ;)
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.13 19:46:00 -
[33]
Originally by: keepiru
Nice. That's another urban miyth busted, i guess.
Not sure if it really proves that it's a myth, but at least it challenges the affirmation a bit.
I think i can explain it though, let's say it's just an assumption about how it works.
Imagine you check the log of a badly tracking guns with long falloff like the 1400mm.
Because of tracking issue, and falloff, you missed 50% of the shots. That's 1% wrecking hits/hits or 0.5% wrecking hits/total shots.
Now, check the log of the small autocannons on a big fat target. You don't miss anymore, so 1% wrecking hits/hits would also be 1% wrecking hits/shots. Or, twice as many wreckings, which is a lot...
Could it be?
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Check for updates/known issues and report bugs/problems/questions/other feedback. |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.13 21:01:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Naughty Boy
Could it be?
Dunno mate, I'm just a humble (LOL!) forum-*****. Youre the maths wizzkid. 
Last I saw this "myth" mentioned was regarding the sig of titans, people were worried thay have a sig so big XL guns would go into perma-wreck. A concern that appears to be unfounded, thankfully.
-------------
Where are the missile damage implants? ;)
|
Kickass
|
Posted - 2005.12.18 01:28:00 -
[35]
Originally by: TomB
Anyone who wants to learn more about how turrets track targets in EVE, this should cover most of your questions:
EVE Turret Tracking Guide
\
Hey Nerf man how about reading this...
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=261311[/url]
\
And telling us where is fits into your tracking guide...
|
SATAN
|
Posted - 2005.12.18 01:28:00 -
[36]
Originally by: TomB
Anyone who wants to learn more about how turrets track targets in EVE, this should cover most of your questions:
EVE Turret Tracking Guide
\
Hey Nerf man how about reading this...
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=261311[/url]
\
And telling us where is fits into your tracking guide...
|
thedragoon
|
Posted - 2005.12.18 16:22:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kickass
Originally by: TomB
Anyone who wants to learn more about how turrets track targets in EVE, this should cover most of your questions:
EVE Turret Tracking Guide
\
Hey Nerf man how about reading this...
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=261311[/url]
\
And telling us where is fits into your tracking guide...
Yupp please reply to the post kickass linked 
Your Warp core stabb misses HAST for 6000 dmg |
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2005.12.29 05:47:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Naughty Boy
Originally by: keepiru
Or so people say.
I grabbed a random relevant log, 150mm AC t2 wolf against blood raider cruisers and battleships.
Summary
Wrecking hits ~1% as expected.
The distribution seems roughly uniform, if we get rid of miss (0 damage) and sum up "lightly hit" and "scratch". It could be tested with standard statistical tests but there's little point as it's not really an experiment conducted in a test environment.
Sincerly yours, The Naughty Boy.
Yes, I believe the distribution is flat except for 'miss'. The quality of your tracking will only affect the number of 'miss' you receive if I am correct. So at the end of the day, there was never a point in us asking for the whole log since the numbers are purely a function of your DM. All we ever needed was the 'miss' percentage.
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
Kalil d'Maelstromo
|
Posted - 2006.01.01 02:16:00 -
[39]
'Big-up' to 'The Weasel' for writing this guide and without his directorship I'd be even noobier.
Cheers dude
**********************************
Huzzah Federation
TPF Community:
www.teamplayfirst.com |
TheRedemption
|
Posted - 2006.01.02 20:52:00 -
[40]
hey guys, im pretty good at maths or so says my grades, but this tracking formula is just a little complex, isnt there a simple version? something we might remember and estimate our damage that we might inflict??
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.01.07 20:58:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Yes, I believe the distribution is flat except for 'miss'. The quality of your tracking will only affect the number of 'miss' you receive if I am correct. So at the end of the day, there was never a point in us asking for the whole log since the numbers are purely a function of your DM. All we ever needed was the 'miss' percentage.
So in relation to this issue, Farjung did some testing:Link.
So, uh, apparently tracking does more that is shown in the tracking guide.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
|
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2006.01.10 02:58:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Naughty Boy
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 08/01/2006 01:12:57
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Yes, I believe the distribution is flat except for 'miss'. The quality of your tracking will only affect the number of 'miss' you receive if I am correct. So at the end of the day, there was never a point in us asking for the whole log since the numbers are purely a function of your DM. All we ever needed was the 'miss' percentage.
So in relation to this issue, Farjung did some testing:Link.
So, uh, apparently tracking does more than is shown in the tracking guide.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Yes, I have changed my stance on this.
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
Lusian
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 05:37:00 -
[43]
Just stoping by.
|
cornwad
|
Posted - 2006.02.16 00:22:00 -
[44]
degree in math and i look over this thinking, 'i just want to shoot something'. go beer!
|
Riflemandodd
|
Posted - 2006.02.16 00:25:00 -
[45]
me so sorry, cornwad was my new character test alt, forgot to delete his ugly face. previous post still stands for Riflemandodd...thats me...i like beer and math :)
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.03.03 00:18:00 -
[46]
|
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 15:27:00 -
[47]
To make things more clear. long ago wrecking shots occured every 100 shots, and we also thought through testing and arguing that hit type distribution was flat.
After patching some time ago Wrecking shots were changed to occur every 100 hits as opposed to just 100 shots.
Now after more testing and arguing we concluded that the hit types actually are affected by tracking.
Why is this important?
Before the only true indication of tracking was hit vs. miss. If you hit 100% of the time there was no room for improvement. So don't fit any TP or Tracking Computer, etc. Now we know this is not necessarily true. Currently the thinking is if you hit 100% of the time, there is still room to improve on the hit types.
Also, even if all conditions are correct there is still a chance of each hit type including miss.
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
Topodo
|
Posted - 2006.03.17 06:28:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Topodo on 17/03/2006 06:28:47
The tracking guide seems to suggest that I can hit 23km orbitting cruisers traversing at 179 m/s with my large 350mm gun. Yet, I don't hit them, at all, unless I throw at least one 30% webber drone on them.
Unless I'm missing something, the damage graph on page 5 is way off.
|
Exuscon
|
Posted - 2006.03.22 00:52:00 -
[49]
Im vectored out.
So basicaly what this all means is, we should all just use Frigs and Destroyers. If anything is not either of the 2 it should be zerged!
|
Valium Summer
|
Posted - 2006.04.02 11:30:00 -
[50]
What I need, is a guide to the Tracking guide.
For I am a stoop-id amerikahn.
Seriously, My brain hurts (what little is left).
I have seen the Arctic Circle... And it is round. |
Galen Silas
|
Posted - 2006.04.04 14:08:00 -
[51]
For some reason when flying my Brutix or my rax, i fit my T2 250mm rails and put spike ammo in there and i can hit over 100km but whenever i move sideways form my target i tend to miss, but when i move in a straight line away i hit almost every time.
|
Dio Len
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 18:53:00 -
[52]
Just to make sure I understand, in summary:
-Lower tracking speeds can be compensated for by shooting at targets further away; this is because a more distant target is covering a smaller portion of the circle than if it were closer (i.e., stuff that's moving fast doesn't look quite so fast from far away).
-Big guns are intended to hit big targets, and consequenlty have trouble shooting little targets due to "spread." Small guns, however, can hit just about anything since they have less "spread."
-A lower transversal velocity means a greater chance to hit, while a higher transversal velocity means less of a chance to hit.
Example: Two ships flying parallel directions are more likely to hit each other than if they were moving perpindicular to each other.
Is that about right?
|
pr0nqueen
|
Posted - 2006.04.20 12:31:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Galen Silas
For some reason when flying my Brutix or my rax, i fit my T2 250mm rails and put spike ammo in there and i can hit over 100km but whenever i move sideways form my target i tend to miss, but when i move in a straight line away i hit almost every time.
Thats because the transversal velocity is about 0 if your approaching a stationary target. When moving "sideways" instead, your velocity = transversal velocity, (against a stationary target, which then affects tracking).
|
Roemy Schneider
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 11:53:00 -
[54]
if i may squeeze in a practical n00b question:
so... does it make sense to 'support' my 40m-resolution-small-boomsticks with a target-painter against these even-smaller-buggers-below-40m-signature)? like... less misses?
|
Gentzen
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 23:05:00 -
[55]
This guide is great, but last page's 'chart wizard' is unpractical to use.
I wrote an offline program to draw tracking graph.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0605/turret_calculator.JPG
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0605/turret_calculator.zip
This program does not consider about enemy resistance, your skills, other modules, at this time.
(use at your own risk, please)
|
Sphynx Stormlord
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 00:14:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 02/06/2006 00:17:08
Could anyone discribe how tracking bonuses affect turret tracking, please?
For example, a basic tracking computer provides (in addition to the 1.1x max range multiplier), a listed 1.2% tracking speed multiplier.
Suppose you have a blaster with 0.1 radians/sec tracking; a bonus of 1.2% would make it 0.1012 radians/sec tracking, which is an almost insignificat change.
Do they realy work like that, or are they incorrectly listed as a %; a 1.2 multiplier would change the 0.1 rad/sec to 0.12 rad/sec, which is possibly worth having.
Or do they work in some other way?
Note: this also makes a significant difference as to how good Void ammo is; it has a 0.5% trackign speed multiplier.
|
Bourgeoisvio
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 09:15:00 -
[57]
So lately I've been fooling around with interceptors orbiting close range at high speeds firing off blasters. So far against small targets I miss almost constantly with small blasters (neutron), which to my knowledge have the best tracking in the game. I have lvl 3 motion tracking, and try orbiting and 500-1000 meters while travelling at around 700-800m/s; usually miss.
What distance/speed orbiting is the bare minimum for small blasters to be able to hit?
|
Sphynx Stormlord
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 19:18:00 -
[58]
The reason the game uses radians/sec is to mke it easy to determine the range at which you should orbit.
Minimum distance for good tracking =
transverse velocity / tracking speed
So for example, with a tracking speed of .33 radians/sec, if you wish to orbit at 700 m/s (which, if the target is stationary, will be your transverse velocity), then you need to be orbiting at at least 700/.33 = 2121 metres.
If you are going to orbit at 1000m, at 700 m/s, then you will need a tracking speed on your turrents of 1000/700=0.7 rad/sec, which would require quite a lot of tracking boosts.
Alternativly, if you are going to orbit at 1000m, and use blasters with a tracking speed of 0.33rad/sec, then you need to orbit at 1000*0.33= 330 m/s or slower for your turrets to track.
So, can anyone answer my question about targeting computers; is the tracking multiplier a % or is it just a straight multiplier, and the % sign is just there to confuse people?
|
Sphynx Stormlord
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 21:09:00 -
[59]
Well, it appears that a listed 1.07% tracking multiplier is infact a 107% tracking multiplier, or a 1.07 multiplier; this was tested using 'show info' on a turret attached to a ship in fitting, before and after fitting a Tracking Enhancer I.
|
snotty
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 12:54:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord
The reason the game uses radians/sec is to mke it easy to determine the range at which you should orbit.
and here i was thinking that if i orbit a stationairy object the transverse velocity = 0
I think you mean the other way around, if i am stationairy and a target orbits me, then if his Tv > tracking * distance, my guns cant keep up any more
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |